I actually agree with you on this, Lubeltri. I think ozgeorge has made an uncharacteristic mistake in his retort, quoting a canon from the Second Ecumenical Council (when the Church could really be considered pre-divided) in an out of time context.

The Oecumenical Patriarchate receives those baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity by Chrisimation, it keeps this Canon. What anyone else does is none of my business.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Common tactic among prooftexters:1. Preach your spurious interpretation of the Scriptures.2. Point to the passages of Scripture you have selected to support your interpretation.3. Absolve yourself of all responsibility by saying such things as "The Bible says" or "take your complaints up with the Scriptures and not with me!"

Even if we disagree with you and deem your biblical exegesis unorthodox, our complaint is not with the Scriptures; rather, our complaint is with your selective reading of the Scriptures.

To those who charge me of believing the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity-

All I said was that everyone is born worthless [=unworthy] before God, totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, and on their way to eternal perdition. Why in the world would you charge me with Calvinsim? What I said is in fact exactly what Arminian Protestants believe also! [These two groups cover most of historic Protestantism.] Arminius accepted total depravity. I guess I am Arminian then too, eh? The uniquely Calvinist version of total depravity says that a man must be monergistically regenerated by a divinely ordained zap which is given only to an arbitrarily selected group of people or else he cannot [=absolutely impossible] even make the slightest move to repentance. Is this what you think I believe? I am only confessing the doctrine of Original Sin which is actually the historic Eastern Orthodox position before the antiLatin movement picked up in the 19th century. I have read old Byzantine dogmatic manuals. And they say generally the same thing I am saying.

And for you to accuse me of Jansenism is equally outrageous. Go read what RC theologians wrote about Original Sin before VaticanII. They would all be Jansensists in your eyes. And so would the Byzantines from about 1500-1830!

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 08:29:47 PM by pathofsolitude »

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

LOL Actually, to be fair, the difference between those jurisdictions which baptise converts from heterodox Churches and those which don't is related to the interpretation of this Canon (Canon VII of the 2nd Ecumenical Council). The Canon seems to presume baptism by triple immersion (Eunomian baptism being rejected because it is a single immersion). The issue is not simply "who" baptizes, but also the form of the baptism. Thus, a Protestant Church which holds correct Trinitarian Dogma and which baptizes in the Name of the Holy Trinity by triple immersion has a closer form of baptism to the Orthodox Church than current Roman Catholic practice of baptism by aspersion as the norm. Constantinople simply applies more "economia" in the interpretation of the Canon.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 09:39:29 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Welcome pathofsolitude. I believe your definitely Orthodox. Your just not at the spiritual level as some others here yet.

Do you mind quoting this scripture for me?

Quote

But take your complaints up with the Scriptures and not with me! In fact the Lord Jesus told us that he will punish them forever by throwing them into a burning trashpit to be tormented by demons.

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

To those who charge me of believing the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity-

All I said was that everyone is born worthless [=unworthy] before God, totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, and on their way to eternal perdition. Why in the world would you charge me with Calvinsim? What I said is in fact exactly what Arminian Protestants believe also! [These two groups cover most of historic Protestantism.] Arminius accepted total depravity. I guess I am Arminian then too, eh? The uniquely Calvinist version of total depravity says that a man must be monergistically regenerated by a divinely ordained zap which is given only to an arbitrarily selected group of people or else he cannot [=absolutely impossible] even make the slightest move to repentance. Is this what you think I believe?

Well, considering that Jacobus Arminius followed after John Calvin, it could make sense to recognize that Arminius started from Calvin's doctrine of total depravity and, following a different emphasis, carried it to a different conclusion. However, the common starting point just shows how Calvinist Arminius really was.

Quote

I am only confessing the doctrine of Original Sin which is actually the historic Eastern Orthodox position before the antiLatin movement picked up in the 19th century. I have read old Byzantine dogmatic manuals. And they say generally the same thing I am saying.

Potentially spurious claims... Can you give us quotes from these dogmatic sources you deem "authoritative", along with the names of these manuals so we can cross-reference your citations?

Quote

And for you to accuse me of Jansenism is equally outrageous. Go read what RC theologians wrote about Original Sin before VaticanII. They would all be Jansensists in your eyes. And so would the Byzantines from about 1500-1830!

To paraphrase a line from the popular movie, Forrest Gump, Jansenism is what Jansenism does. Rather than point out how we might consider our own Fathers Jansenists as defense of your position, why don't you tell us what Jansenism is and how your position differs?

Thats why Jesus condemned them flat out as children of the devil. And thats the practice of the Apostles as we see from several examples in the book of Acts where they did not hesitate to condemn the godless pseudoChristians in the spirit of Matthew 23.

BTW, sorry, I am catching up here on p 3 and this will get posted on p 4

Actually, Jesus condemned Pharisees and other religious leaders of his day. There were no protestants at that time. You can't anachronistically say Jesus condemned a rather large and diverse group of people who came into being 1500 years later.

You CAN say Jesus condemned this or that particular practice, attitude, sin or wrong belief (like the Sadducees not believing in the resurrection); but you can't say Jesus condemned Protestants, you have to point ot specific wrong beliefs and/or practices that Jesus condemned which protestants practice.

Also, which Protestants? the Calvinsts or the Arminians? The Baptists or Presbyterians? You get my point.

I think a little precision ( or perhaps a lot) in your condemnations, and further, ratcheting down these condemnations to criticisms would be helpful to us and to yourself.

Also, which Protestants? the Calvinsts or the Arminians? The Baptists or Presbyterians? You get my point.

I think a little precision ( or perhaps a lot) in your condemnations, and further, ratcheting down these condemnations to criticisms would be helpful to us and to yourself.

That's right Brother Aiden I remember I called my Uniting church friend (The Uniting church is an amalgamation between presbyterian, Methodist and the congregationalists in Australia ) got extremely offended when I referred to her as a protestant because for her it brought up negative images of fundamentalist Christians trumpeting the creation story and so forth. After that I now truly believe that there should be a distinction made between the protestant groups instead of generalizing the group (not in my life would I compare the Church of England to a pentecostal church).

All I said was that everyone is born worthless [=unworthy] before God, totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, and on their way to eternal perdition.

Right. And this teaching is heterodox.

Quote

I am only confessing the doctrine of Original Sin which is actually the historic Eastern Orthodox position...

No, it isn't. You are actually reflecting a Western tendency concerning the teaching of original sin.

Quote

I have read old Byzantine dogmatic manuals. And they say generally the same thing I am saying.

You must have been reading "manuals" that date from the time of the "Western captivity" of the Greek Church, which it only painfully began to emerge from, theologically speaking, in the late 1950's.

Quote

And so would the Byzantines from about 1500-1830!

News flash. There was no "Byzantine" state after 1453. Morever, during the Turkocracy and the period after it, until very recently, there was not a whole lot of good theology coming forth from the Greek Church. A great intellectual tradition died along with the East Roman (Byzantine) state. So you've very possibly been reading a pile of scholastic garbage that is worse than that penned by Aquinas and others, since some of the Western writing at least had some original and creative thought put into it, instead of the second-rate derivative things penned by Greeks schooled in Roman or (irony of ironies!) Protestant theological schools and seminaries!

I'm not sure I see your point. The Canon comes from the Second Ecumenical Council, two generations after the First Ecumenical Council in which Arianism was anathematized; yet the Canon says that those who had received Arian baptism were received into the Orthodox Church by Chrisimation, not Baptism- isn't this the precedent?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I'm not sure I see your point. The Canon comes from the Second Ecumenical Council, two generations after the First Ecumenical Council in which Arianism was anathematized; yet the Canon says that those who had received Arian baptism were received into the Orthodox Church by Chrisimation, not Baptism- isn't this the precedent?

Arians were in error to be sure, but the canon set the precedent- this is not 'economia' - for them and other listed heretics. But this council does not cover every instance of those considered in error or outside the Church.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

To those who charge me of believing the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity-

All I said was that everyone is born worthless [=unworthy] before God, totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, and on their way to eternal perdition. Why in the world would you charge me with Calvinsim? What I said is in fact exactly what Arminian Protestants believe also! [These two groups cover most of historic Protestantism.] Arminius accepted total depravity. I guess I am Arminian then too, eh? The uniquely Calvinist version of total depravity says that a man must be monergistically regenerated by a divinely ordained zap which is given only to an arbitrarily selected group of people or else he cannot [=absolutely impossible] even make the slightest move to repentance. Is this what you think I believe? I am only confessing the doctrine of Original Sin which is actually the historic Eastern Orthodox position before the antiLatin movement picked up in the 19th century. I have read old Byzantine dogmatic manuals. And they say generally the same thing I am saying.

And for you to accuse me of Jansenism is equally outrageous. Go read what RC theologians wrote about Original Sin before VaticanII. They would all be Jansensists in your eyes. And so would the Byzantines from about 1500-1830!

Dear Pathofsolitude,

First of all, I don't think anyone here was "accusing" you of anything.

Second, yes, the whole notion of original sin is Heterodox. It does sound outrageous to all who were brought up in the Western Christian tradition - both Roman Catholic and Protestant. But that's the whole point; the Orthodox Church does not teach that people are intrinsically sinful or "depraved." That was St./Bl. Augustine's interpretation of Scripture, which eastern Fathers never embraced. Their interpretation was that people were and still are intrinsically good. We sin because we are born into the world where it is easier to sin than not to sin, plus we all have a natural propensity or inclination toward sin. But we are, nonetheless, not born "sinners" or "in sin." We all have a "sparkle" of good in us, we are absolutely capable of doing good and choosing good; we still are God's most favored, most cherished creatures who can by their own effort serve God and glorify Him, and who very often do so.

Quoting selected "proof texts" and saying, "here's what the Bible says," is not Orthodox either, as far as I know.

So good to have you here. I hope and pray that you stay with us on this forum!

Hi, Juliana! I'm new to these boards and I look forward to learning and sharing. Thanks for your encouragement!

Grace and peace of our Lord Christ Jesus be with you always!

Sophia

Logged

Luk 9: And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. John answered, Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us. But Jesus said to him, Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you.

Actually, part of my hubby's mangement training included extensive "Diversity University" training. This was part of the teaching in one of the many classes.

Grace and Peace,

Sophia

Logged

Luk 9: And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. John answered, Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us. But Jesus said to him, Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you.

PathofSolitude: when I read your original post, a parable in Luke came to my mind:

Luke 18:9-14Jesus told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, `God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, `God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."

If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make that change!

May the Grace and Peace of our Lord Christ Jesus be with you!

Sophia

What a beautiful post. I think 99% of the time (at least for me) we are the problem, not others.

You have repeatedly been asked to clarify what your prior and current spiritual practice is...and you do nothing but avoid answering.

Could you please answer this vital question before making ANY other statements?It would be much appreciated.

Our friend hasn't been on since Sunday. Give them time.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

You have repeatedly been asked to clarify what your prior and current spiritual practice is...and you do nothing but avoid answering.

Could you please answer this vital question before making ANY other statements?It would be much appreciated.

Unabashed uncanonically Orthodox

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

Thanks for this very up-to-date information. Anything else I didnt know? Needless for me to say, the Eastern Orthodox church still calls itself, its liturgy, its theology, etc etc "Byzantine."

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

Second, yes, the whole notion of original sin is Heterodox. It does sound outrageous to all who were brought up in the Western Christian tradition - both Roman Catholic and Protestant. But that's the whole point; the Orthodox Church does not teach that people are intrinsically sinful or "depraved." That was St./Bl. Augustine's interpretation of Scripture, which eastern Fathers never embraced. Their interpretation was that people were and still are intrinsically good. We sin because we are born into the world where it is easier to sin than not to sin, plus we all have a natural propensity or inclination toward sin. But we are, nonetheless, not born "sinners" or "in sin." We all have a "sparkle" of good in us, we are absolutely capable of doing good and choosing good; we still are God's most favored, most cherished creatures who can by their own effort serve God and glorify Him, and who very often do so.

To my dear George,

This is heresy!! Orthodox theologians teach that everyone is born spiritually depraved. Why do you think we baptize and chrismate babies? Whats the point if they already have the Holy Spirit? The true doctrine of Original Sin says that man is born in a state of spiritual death. Scripture calls this sin. [Harmartia= miss the mark, fall short of the glory.] Because of this sin God does not usually admit them into his kingdom until they are baptized. This is what the Orthodox church has always taught.

And how do you think that atheists are *only* intrinsically good? Talk about onesided!

Then you add the Pelagian heresy that sinners are "absolutely capable of doing and choosing good", and "can by their own effort serve God and glorify him," and "very often do so." Anathema, anathema, one thousand anathemas! All the saints teach that grace is absolutely necessary for man to cooperate in salvation. Its impossible for man to please God merely by his own effort.

Well George, I really dont know what to say to you. I hope that you and all my detractors come to your senses.

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

I guess its usage by the Eastern Orthodox is part of the socalled "western captivity" then. There is no need to squibble over terms here and get sidetracked.

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

This is heresy!! Orthodox theologians teach that everyone is born spiritually depraved. Why do you think we baptize and chrismate babies? Whats the point if they already have the Holy Spirit? The true doctrine of Original Sin says that man is born in a state of spiritual death. Scripture calls this sin. [Harmartia= miss the mark, fall short of the glory.] Because of this sin God does not usually admit them into his kingdom until they are baptized. This is what the Orthodox church has always taught.

Dear Pathofsolitude,

I am not a cleric/theologian, so I can be mistaken, but, again, there is no notion of being born in the state of spiritual death in Orthodoxy. Instead, there is a notion of being naturally born into the world that lies in sin. We baptize and chrismate babies (or, rather, we witness God's work of baptizing and chrismating babies) so that these babies are admitted into God's new world, new humankind, or the Church.

Then you add the Pelagian heresy that sinners are "absolutely capable of doing and choosing good", and "can by their own effort serve God and glorify him," and "very often do so." Anathema, anathema, one thousand anathemas! All the saints teach that grace is absolutely necessary for man to cooperate in salvation. Its impossible for man to please God merely by his own effort.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but the Pelagian heresy is, "possere non peccare." I never said that I believe that, or that the Orthodox Church teaches that. It is impossible for a human being (or, rather, for a "human becoming," because Christ is the only real, complete, accomplished human "being") to live all life and not to sin. And yes, I agree with you that God's grace is absolutely necessary. What I disagree with is that this Grace falls on a completely dead human being and acts, works in this human being, making this human being acceptable to God. That is the Augustinian soteriology, which is the foundation of both "branches" of modern Protestant theology, Calvinist and Arminian. On the other hand, the Orthodox soteriology is that a man, being intrinsically good, is born into an ill world; he lives in this world and becomes ill, but there is still a lot of good in him, and this good cooperates with God's grace, so the man begins his "theosis," or path of salvation.

In all honesty, I don't think Pathofsolitude is a troll. On the Ukrainian forum "Maidan," I often read very similar posts of people who confess Eastern Rite Catholic faith. They also emphasize on the Augustinian "total depravity," and say that we, the Orthodox, should embrace this concept because "that's what the Eastern Church taught all along, not just the Roman Catholic Church."

Oxymoron To be Orthodox is to follow the canons, which is the definition of canonical. To be uncanonical by not following the canons makes one of necessity NOT Orthodox. You're either uncanonical or you're Orthodox, but you cannot be both.

Why do you think we baptize and chrismate babies? Whats the point if they already have the Holy Spirit?

They are not said to have the Holy Spirit at birth; they are given this at baptism/chrismation. Our understanding of Ancestral Sin, as (I think) Heorhij put it, is that we are born mortal as a consequence of our first parents' separating themselves from the Source of their (and our) life. Since, then, a newborn infant immediately bears the mortal image of the first Adam, s/he is in need of the image of the New Adam--Christ--an image given to them in baptism. They are thus united to Christ and brought justified into a place where they can grow in theosis.

Nowhere in this idea, however, is the idea that a newborn infant is somehow held personally culpable for the guilt of Adam's sin. Said infant simply bears the mark of mortality merely by existing...and such an existence "falls short of the glory of God," for it is something other than an enfleshed spirit, created in the image and after the likeness of God, living in perfect communion with Life Himself.

And how do you think that atheists are *only* intrinsically good? Talk about onesided!

He didn't say this. He said there's good in them. That's quite different than "only intrinsically good." The atheist may have darkened his soul against God (who among us hasn't, and we're baptized Christians!), but even as an unregenerate, there still exists an image, albeit a blighted one, of our God in him.

Then you add the Pelagian heresy that sinners are "absolutely capable of doing and choosing good", and "can by their own effort serve God and glorify him," and "very often do so." Anathema, anathema, one thousand anathemas!

He didn't say this, either. Man can choose to respond to the image of God that yet remains in him, yet the presence of this image is, in and of itself, an act of grace.

Oxymoron To be Orthodox is to follow the canons, which is the definition of canonical. To be uncanonical by not following the canons makes one of necessity NOT Orthodox. You're either uncanonical or your Orthodox, but you cannot be both.

According to the establishment, yes. But I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox. Of course thats another oxymoron to you. I really dont want to debate my ecclesiastical situation. Thats not what this thread is about.

Logged

The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

According to the establishment, yes. But I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox. Of course thats another oxymoron to you. I really dont want to debate my ecclesiastical situation. Thats not what this thread is about.

I think you'll find most here are antidisestablishmentarianists.

Thanks for giving a language teacher an excuse to use a really long word.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens